Shifting Autologous Breast Reconstruction into an Ambulatory Setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As bundled payment models gain popularity, it is imperative that providers use patient outcomes and patient experience to define evidence-based pathways of care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the quality of recovery experienced by women undergoing early discharge (<24 hours) after autologous breast reconstruction with a pedicled flap and determine predictors of postoperative quality of recovery. METHODS: A prospective cohort study was performed on all women undergoing autologous breast reconstruction at Women's College Hospital between September of 2011 and July of 2013 that met study inclusion criteria. The patient-reported Quality of Recovery-27 questionnaire was used to measure quality of recovery on postoperative days 1, 2, 4, and 7. Preoperative and postoperative day 7 Quality of Recovery-27 questionnaire scores were compared. A multivariable random effect model for longitudinal data was used to evaluate any relationship between postoperative Quality of Recovery-27 questionnaire scores and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, body mass index, and pain. Secondary analyses of delayed discharge (>24 hours) and complications were also undertaken. RESULTS: Forty women, aged 28 to 69 years, were included in this study. There was no statistically significant difference between the preoperative and postoperative day 7 Quality of Recovery-27 questionnaire scores, suggesting that our patients recovery to their preoperative state by postoperative day 7. Poorer total Quality of Recovery-27 questionnaire scores were associated with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists classification, low and high body mass indexes (U-shaped relationship), and higher pain scores. CONCLUSION: Patients undergoing an ambulatory pathway of care for autologous breast reconstruction demonstrate acceptable quality of recovery. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".